Conference hydra::amiga_v1

First, Commodore is the wrong group to ask about the Video Toaster, as they
don't produce the board. The rep may be right, but I'd ask NewTek (someone
correct me if they aren't the manufacturer) about it. And not trust them
very much about release dates, given the history of the Toaster.

Second, have you looked into the other 24-bit frame buffer tools? I don't know
if they meet your needs, but they might be available for the A3000 before the
video toaster.

As for the A2500 - CBM representatives have stated that it's still considered
the "high end" machine. You can get more cpu speed (>25MHz '030 boards), and
get more slots, than the A3000. And it's been around longer, so you're
liable to find more strange hardware, and people who know how it works, than
you are on the 3000.

The 3000 is faster than a 2500. 32-bit access to CHIP ram will pay off in
smoother animations. 2 Meg of chip ram might be a benefit, also. To me,
the deciding factor was that the 3000 will have higher resale value than
the 2500 if/when you want to upgrade again.

	<mike

    I would love to buy a 3000 though my main worry (not to speak of money)
    is how compatable is it with the programs I use now.
    
    eg Will it run Jr-comm,DpaintIII,Pixmate and the other 4000 utilities
    that make my programming life easier on the amiga.
    
    Shaun.
    

    As noted CBM is still marketing the 2500 as the top of the line. Their
    are a few things to consider,that seem to be overlooked by some people.
    	1) more expansion slots- true,but if you put a flicker fixer,in the
    2500 you have cut this edge by one slot,the 030 board itself takes a
    slot, so the advantage narrows down to more IBM slots. 
    	2) the 3000 will have the ability to access 2meg of chip someday.
    	3) I like the thought of having 68000 compatability with the 2500.
    I would not hesitate to upgrade to a 030 card with my 2000. I use the 
    video slot for a Supergen 2000s,and don't think it will work with the 
    3000. I don't feel the 3000 is mature enough at this time. This is in
    terms of both software,and hardware 3rd party vendors. As for the 32
    bit bus well... The bulk of the coprocessor chips are still 16 bit. 
    The GVP 030 card will give you a disk drive on the 32 bit bus, you can
    remap system calls to the 32 bit memory. The graphics you are concerned
    about will still be restricted by the agnus,and other chips so I think 
    any preformance loss would hardly be noticed. As for obsolete I place
    the 3000 today where the 1000 was when it came out. 32 bit or no it
    just does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling. Sure you have
    expansion:the 1000 did not, you have the memory etc :the 1000 did not
    but I'm comparing it in terms of how much is abailable,and how will it
    hold up in regard to other CBM configurations available. I guess you
    could call the 3000 a "Porsche" ,and the 2500 a "Blazer". This is how I
    look at them in the long haul. It would be nice to have a Porsche,but 
    could you replace your Blazer with it.
    								bill 

    
    CBM is prompting software distributors to embellish their products with
    a nice looking 'AmigaDOS Release 2 Compatible' badge.  There is a
    (hopefully partial) list of compliant products on page 95 of the
    September AmigaWorld.
    
    A nice touch and very professional looking.  Just another example of
    the attention to detail that the Copperman administration is showing. 
    I suspect this will prompt every developer who gives a damn to make his
    product work with 2.0.
    
    From reading Mac notes, I've observed that there is a fairly short
    cycle between the release of a major revision of the system software
    and the upgrading of major packages, although we'll see what happens
    with System 7.0.
    
    Ed.
    

RE:.3

>   	2) the 3000 will have the ability to access 2meg of chip someday.

Ah, ahem, someday is today.


	-SES
 (with 10 meg A3000 - 2 meg chip; 8 meg fast)

    Ed,
    	I saw the list in the add for 2.0 software. I also know I haven't 
    seen update notices for BroadCast titler,and several other products I
    own. We all have software that is 2.0 compatable but uses the 1.3 
    workbench. How will these work when 2.0 is available( look of icons
    etc)?
    	I was not sure about status of 2 meg of chip for the 3000, so I
    played it safe. 
    								bill

    
    Current software that is properly written will automatically open up
    2.0 looking windows and gadgets etc, since the application doesn't
    generally draw the window anyway.
    
    I've played with a ton of older software on Moe's A3000 that came up
    with the 2.0 'look'.   Another ton also instantly crashed.
    
    Current icons automatically have that 'embossed' 3D look.  It's
    clever and wierd.  It looks like they take any current icon and simply
    draw a border around it, and use that border to create the shaded
    effect as the icon's state is toggled.
    
    Ed
    
    

re .4

1) The 030 board in a 2500 goes into the CPU slot, not a Zorro slot. Likewise,
doesn't the flicker fixer go into the video slot? If you then use one of the
all-in-one solutions that puts the memory & disk controller on the 030 card,
you get the same base machine as the 3000, and still have all the Zorro and
IBM slots free.

2) If you run 1.3 on the 3000, then you wind up with something that should
be identical to the 2500, except that it's got memory addressed higher than
0xffffff (someone who has really poked at the hardware want to point out
the things I don't know about?). Very little software should break that
doesn't break on the 2500. Then again, I run 2.0 all the time, so can't say
for sure.

3) There are two things that primarily break things going to the 3000 under
2.0. One is that you've now got a much faster processor. That's games, and
some old (pre 1.2) utilities, many of which break on a 68010.  The second
thing is going to 2.0. The 3000 doesn't change any of that. My 2000/20
environment under 2.0 moved to a 3000 without a problem.

4) Chip memory being faster. That's going to be more important than you'd
think. For a while, I had a 3000 with a Zorro II fast card in it. A ram speed
test on the two showed that the 3000's chip memory was between 2 and 3
times faster than the "fast" Zorro II memory. With that kind of an edge,
an '030 can do the blit's faster than the custom chips. In any case,
animations on the 3000 seem much smoother. I don't know if that's the cpu
being able to tweak chip ram faster, or the faster CPU in general.

I agree with you - the 3000 seems a lot like the 1000. Both of them give
me that warm, fuzzy feeling of seeing something that is basically right.
I've never regretted buying a 1000 based on that feeling, in spite of what
CBM did to it afterwards. I also agree that if you need the expandability
of the 2000, the 3000 won't replace it. On the other hand, paying more for
a Blazer than a Porsche when you're only going to be driving you and things
that fit in the back of the Porsche seems silly.

	<mike

    re .8
    	Slots point well taken. If you have a card Supergen 2000s,or
    Toaster in your video slot you are forced to use one expansion slot,and
    one ibm slot (deb board) if you want the flickerfixer. I mentioned this as
    a point in favor of the 3000. Actually looking back at the base note if
    this person or anyone wants to use the Amiga in a commercial setting,or
    with the toaster,and wants to do it in the near future you have no
    choice. it has to be the 2500. Lets face it the 3000 is not yet ready 
    in regards to hardware because of the change in the video slot. Even if
    the slot had not changed I don't know if the supergen 2000s would fit
    in a 3000. (runs the depth of a 2000,and has the breakout box. At any
    rate I also don't see the 2500 being obsoleted in the near future. True
    if some high end developers go to minimum 2meg chip products it may
    cause a problem. Looking at the fact you can add the fat lady to a 1000 
    now it is possibe some clever person could do the same for the 2000.
    	The 68030 may be able to outperform the blitter in some instances,
    but then you could probably do the same with a 80386 system,and fast 
    memory. The advantage of the blitter goes beyound speed. It's when
    people use the copper list,and the blitter to give you the type of
    power seen in recent demos that their true pontentional show. The key
    is for developers to exploit these features. CBM should be working on
    making these 32 bit chips. I think the 3000 was a rush to get entry
    level exposure in the 32 bit market. In the future we may well see a
    system like the 3000 on full 32 bits. IF this happens the market for
    a used 2500 will be better tahn a used 3000. Performance won't be a key
    issue,and the flexability of a 2500 would make it fairly attractive to 
    someone looking for used equiptment. Of course we will see 040 flavors
    of both machines before anything like this will happen.NOW A FULL 32
    BIT 040 system!!!!!!
    								bill
    PS. Whatever you buy today, you will need to retrofit for the future.

    re -1.
    I realize the "fat lady" can be used in the 2000. I ment the ability to 
    address 2 meg of chip ram. I believe a few 500s slipped out with this 
    ability. Can someone correct me on this ? Something to do with 1 meg
    chips as opposed to 256x4s.
    								bill

I _thought_ the Agnus variants vs. machines was like so:

1000 - shipped with the original, hacks to make work with the 1Meg fat agnus
	available.

2000 - shipped with the original or the fat agnus, motherboard set up to
	be able to use either the original or the fat agnus.

3000 - shipped with, and using, the 2Meg fatter agnus.

500 - shipped with either the original or fat agnus, and all motherboards
	are set up to use either. Later versions of the motherboard are
	set up to be able to use the fatter agnus.

The fat agnus and fatter agnus are internally identical; the packaging on
the fatter agnus brings out the extra address line(s) for to meg of chip ram.

Corrections welcome.

I know there are people working on hacks to make a fatter agnus work
in the place of a fat agnus. Dave Haynie is helping them (some), but
doesn't hold much hope for them making it work.

Finally, re .9 - I don't see how a full 32-bit Amiga would make the
resale value of the 2500 better than that of the 3000. What's going to
drive resale value after they're both obsolete is going to be expansion
boards available. At that point, the 3000 will look better because of those
32 bit slots. The only change CBM could make that would drive the resale on
the 3000 down, and the 2500 up, would be a "high-end" machine that used slots
from the 2000 instead of the 300 versions. I could see CBM changing things
again, which would level the two machines, but I can't see them going back
to the 2000 video or CPU slots.

	<mike

RE: .11

	On Agnus variants - there are 4

	The A1000 and German A2000 used the original design (512K Chip Meme

	The US A2000 (Sometimes called B2000), and the A500 came with the
FAT Agnus (512K Chip Mem).  All of these should be able to take the 1 Meg
FATTER Agnus.

	The A3000 comes with a 2 Meg Fatter Agnus.

	The Fatter Agnus supporst the new Denise, bigger blits and a few other
things.

	There is a commercial product that will let the A1000 use the new
chipset and thereby user AmigaOS 2.0.  There has been no news on what Commodore
or any third party will do for upgrading the German A2000.


	On usability of A2000 boards:

	The A3000 will use most expansion boards designed for the A2000 ZORRO II
bus.  (Correctly designed ones will work.)  The A3000 specific boards will not
run on the A2000.

-----Robert

    
>	The A1000 and German A2000 used the original design (512K Chip Meme
>
>	The US A2000 (Sometimes called B2000), and the A500 came with the
>FAT Agnus (512K Chip Mem).  All of these should be able to take the 1 Meg
>FATTER Agnus.
    
    Huh?  I agree with what Mike wrote.  The FAT Agnus is the 1Meg version.
    the 512 version I got with my A1000 in 1986 was just called Agnus. For
    lack of a better name Mike referred to the repackaged 2 meg version in
    the A3000 as FATTER Agnus.  So, there are two Agnus chips and three
    packages.

    - steve

There are Four distinct AGNUS versions.

The original Agnus is a DIP package (I believe)  These are in the A1000
and German A2000

All of the rest are square package chips withs leads on all four sides.
The original 512KB version was used ibn the A500/B2000 this has the same
functions as the one in the A1000 with some of the support circuitry needed
integrated into the chip.  The A1000 version needed several more components
to work.

There is the 1 MEG version usable in the A500/B2000 series

There is the 2 MEG version in the A3000

The 1 MEG and 2 MEG versions are basically the same except for the definition
of a couple of leads.

This makes 4 different AGNUS chips.  The 512K A500/B2000 512K chip has always
been called a FAT Agnus due to the additional circuitry in the chip.

-----Robert

Steve, Robert and I said the same thing, only I got the names wrong.

FAT agnus is what I called the "original agnus in the 2000/500". It's a
512K chip ram agnus, but with more pins than the original.

FATTER agnus is the 2Meg chip ram agnus. It's used in a package that only
brings out 1 meg of address lines for the 2000 and 500 (at least, that's
my understanding. Robert?) In the 3000, all the address lines are available.

	Thanx,
	<mike

Re: .11

I believe your note is pretty much correct, except that you gloss some
of the versions of the Agnus.  Unfortunately, there isn't a good naming
scheme for the different Agnuses, and this causes confusion.

The different versions of the Agnus are:

	The version 1 Agnus could only address 512K memory, and all of
	that memory was chip memory.  This Agnus has a different pinout
	from all the other Agnuses.  This Agnus was shipped in the 1000,
	and the 2000, model A (the early European 2000).  Because of the
	different pinout of this chip and the limit of 512k of motherboard
	memory on the 1000, there is no official upgrade path to any new
	Agnus.  However, the rejuvenator folks have developed a motherboard
	replacement for the 1000.  Amiga 2000 model A's probably can be
	upgraded by doing a motherboard swap for a model B motherboard
	(the cost would be at least US $500).

	The version 2 Agnus could address 1 meg memory.  512K was chip memory;
	512K was half-fast memory (non-chip memory that slowed down during
	custom chip cycle stealing).  This Agnus had no other new features.
	It has the same pinout as the version 3a Agnus.  This Agnus was shipped
	in early model 500s and early model B 2000s.  Those machines be
	upgraded to the version 3a Agnus by swapping a chip (plus moving
	jumpers or cutting traces).

	The version 3 Agnus comes in two subversions.  The two subversions
	use exactly the same silicon, but the plastic housing for the chip
	for the two versions is different.  The housing determines whether
	the chip support 1 meg or 2 meg of chip ram.

	The version 3a Agnus has the same pinout as the version 2 Agnus.
	This version supports 1 meg of chip memory and additional blitter
	features (such as very large blits).  This chip has been standard
	in Amiga 500s and Amiga 2000s manufactured in the last year.

	The version 3b Agnus has a pinout different from all other versions
	of the Agnus. It supports 2 meg of chip memory, but has no other
	improvements above the version 3a Agnus.  This version is standard
	in the Amiga 3000.  Amiga 500s and 2000s will have the same problem
	using this Agnus as the Amiga 1000 has using the version 2 or 3a
	Agnus.  A new motherboard is likely to be required.

The version numbers of the Agnuses above are my own invention (invented
for this note).  Someone else might reasonably number this differently
(particularly the version 3a and 3b Agnuses).

I believe that Commodore calls the version 3a Agnus the "Enhanced Agnus."

I popular terminology, I've heard the version 2 and version 3a Agnus
both called the "Fat Agnus," though its also popular to differentiate
the version 2 Agnus from the version 3a Agnus by calling the latter
the "Fatter Agnus."  Terminology for the version 3b Agnus verges on the
silly: usually people just keep heaping on adjectives describing
obesity until it sounds fat enough.

    Ah, yes I see my problem. I never really thought of the 512k version in
    the A2000 as being the FAT agnus, but I guess you might call it that
    since it was in a different package.  When I bought my 1 Meg chip from
    Omnitek the package was labeled Fat Agnus.
    
    So I guess we have three different packages (A1000, A500&A2000,
    and A3000) and two different chips (512K vs 2Meg) in four combinations
    as Robert indicated:  512K/A1000, 512K/A500&A2000, 2Meg/A2000 (1 meg
    accessible), and 2Meg/A3000.
    
    Sorry for the added confusion...
    
    -steve

RE: .17

Yes, FAT refered to the square package, not the address space or capability,
at least until the 1 meg and greater versions began to show up somewhat
later.

	-SES

    
    
    I thought the 2 Meg Agnus was called the Super Agnus
    
    
    
    			- Pete -
    

Re: .17

>    So I guess we have three different packages (A1000, A500&A2000,
>    and A3000) and two different chips (512K vs 2Meg) in four combinations

Make that three different chips (different pieces of silicon) in
three different chip packages (see .16) for four different models of
Amiga.  To make things confusing, the three chips and the three chip
packages don't line up!


Re: .16

I'm sorry for the amount of overlap between .16 and the rest of the replies.
I started writing it, iconified the window, and didn't finish it for
a few hours.

    Actually the "Fatter" Agnus chip does have a name, it is called
    Agnus - HI RES by Commodore, and carries the -02 version number.
    
    TOPGUN

    I think the original question was long ago lost for this poor person.
     What should you do, buy a 2500 or a 3000?  I don't think it really
    matters.  There are plenty of fine "external" video boards (The
    Supergen 2000 will NOT fit in a 3000 [2" too long]) available for
    the 2XXX machines and the 3000 machines.  Any machine you purchase
    will be upgraded with an accellerator board (the 040 is already
    running on both machines).  There are MANY more slots on a 2000
    than a 3000.  There is much more addressable memory on a 3000
    motherboard than on a 2000.  What will run on a 2000 under 1.3 will
    run on a 3000 under 1.3.  With the new 2.1 kickstart most things
    that run under 1.3 will run 2.0.
    
    If you get a 2000 look into the GVP 030/50MHZ card.
    
    If you get a 3000 spend the money for the memory upgrade right away.
    (* I do know where you can get the ZIP chips (statics) for $45/chip*)
    
    TOPGUN

    After some of the replies I can see if I want to get started on
    my venture now and be able to use the toaster I need to purchase
    the 2500. Since I'm a student I hope to qualify for the "Education
    Purchase Program".  The configuration that I'm thinking on is  the
    Amiga 2500/30 system which consists of:
    
    Amiga Vision, A2500/30, 2 Mb 32 bit RAM, 1Mb 16 bit RAM, 3.5 floppy
    drive, 40Mb SCSI hard disk, 68882 math co-processor, A2286D, 1084S.
    
    The price is $3679.00.  I really don't need the A2286D and really
    don't want the 1084S monitor, but for the price of just buying a
    A2500/30 ($2819.00) it's a much better deal.  I can always run desk
    top publishing on the AT side.  But, the monitor bothers me.  For
    desk to video I want the Hi-Res.  Wanted to buy the NEC 3D monitor.
    Can the 1084S handle Hi-Res?
    
    Still searching,
    Ray
    
    

re .12
    
>>	There is a commercial product that will let the A1000 use the new
>> chipset and thereby user AmigaOS 2.0.  
    
    Robert,
    You say there is a commercial product for A1000 users.
    Do You know this product?? Is it useful?? Can You give any
    explanations?
    
    Thanks
    Gerald
    

re: .24

	One of the products is called the REJUNVINATOR  (I am not sure what
the other is called..)  The company that manufactures these have been
advertising in the Amiga magazines.  (Mine are at home of course... :-)).

	One of the last two AmigaWorlds (Sept/Oct) should have an ad.
The company may be Australian.

-----Robert